Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFRANCK, Jens-Uwe
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-29T15:04:16Z
dc.date.available2015-04-29T15:04:16Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1725-6739
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/35578
dc.description.abstractThis article explores whether cartelists should be liable for losses resulting from umbrella pricing, thereby critically evaluating the ECJ’s judgment in “Kone”. Since the EU legislature did not resolve the question of liability for umbrella pricing, it has to be evaluated in accordance with national law, which must however comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU. Therefore and in accordance with the Court’s judgment in “Courage”, the decisive criterion should be the effect a cartelist’s liability for umbrella pricing would have on effective and efficient enforcement of competition law. An analysis based on the standard model of optimal sanctioning reveals the ambivalent effect of such a liability. Thus, in view of opposing risks of systematic over- and under-deterrence and in accordance with the principle of institutional balance, the Court has to leave the EU legislature and the national legislatures, respectively, with the discretion not to provide for compensation in the case of umbrella effects.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI LAWen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2015/18en
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.subjectUmbrella pricingen
dc.subjectCompetition law damagesen
dc.subjectPrinciple of effectivenessen
dc.subjectInstitutional balanceen
dc.subjectReasonable foreseeabilityen
dc.titleUmbrella pricing and cartel damages under EU competition lawen
dc.typeWorking Paperen


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record